SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

Pu b l i s h ed b y : S o u th As i a n Aca d e m i c Re s ea r ch J o u rn a l s

SAJMMR:
South Asian Journal of Marketing & Management Research CONCLUDED SUMMERY OF DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OF BRAND BUILDING PROCESS
DR. BHUVNENDER CHAUDHARY*; MR. NIKHIL MONGA**; MR. AMIT SARKER*** *Dean, Phonics Group of Institutions, Roorkee, India. **Research Scholar, Assistant Professor & HOD, Department of Management Studies, Phonics Group of Institutions, Roorkee, India. ***Research Scholar, Singhania University, India. Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Phonics Group of Institutions, Roorkee, India. ABSTRACT In the present branding literature there are many researchers and have their different theories for branding building process although brand building process very from product and services. Services have very different characteristics compared to products. The purpose of research is to analyze the process of building a brand. Research suggests that when it comes to the process of building a brand, the emphasis is put on brand identity and trust. In this researcher have summarized and concluded the different theories, concept and the perspective given by Aaker, Kapferer, Melin. KEYWORD: Branding, Brands, Customers. ______________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION There are many conceptions of the meaning of a brand that each emphasizes different perspective of the concept. Hence, it could be of interest to have a brief discussion regarding different views about this matter in order to arrive at a definition that we find most suitable. The definition of a brand stated in the Swedish Intellectual Property Law can serve as a good starting point of discussion: A brand may consist of all signs which may be reproduced graphically, especially words including personal names as well as figures, letters, numbers and the shape or South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 100 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

outfit of a good or its package, provided that the signs can distinguish goods which are offered in one business from those that are offered in another. A traditional definition of a brand was: the name, associated with one or more items in the product line, that is used to identify the source of character of the item(s) (Kotler 2000, p. 396). The American Marketing Association (AMA) definition of a brand is a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors (p. 404). Within this view, as Keller (2003a) says, technically speaking, the n, whenever a marketer creates a new name, logo, or symbol for a new product, he or she has created a brand (p. 3). He recognizes, however, that brands today are much more than that. As can be seen, according to these definitions brands had a simple and clear function as identifiers.As Melin (1999) points out, this legal definition is rather descriptive since it emphasizes a brands characteristics and functions, with a focus on the latter. The meaning of a brand is discussed even more explicitly in Kapferers (1994) definition, which states, A brand is not a product. It is the products essence, its meaning, and its direction and it defines its identity in time and space (Kapferer, 1994, p.4). The characteristics of a brand are also pointed out by Aaker (1991) who puts focus on the physical aspects of a brand stating that A brand is a distinguishing name and/or symbol (such as a logo, trademark, or package design) intended to identify the goods or services of either one seller or group of sellers, and to differentiate those goods or services from those of competitors (Aaker, 1991, p.7) In our opinion, this definition clearly emphasizes the differentiating function of the brand, something that Salzer-Mrling & Strannegrd (2002) also point out by defining a brand as a companys symbol that in addition to its visual form (logotype), is a carrier of value. This value is due to the fact that the brand is a sign of the company that identifies the companys products and consequently separates them from others by creating associations and meanings (Salzer-Mrling & Strannegrd, 2002, our translation, p 151). The main focus of this definition seems to be the brand as a value carrier for the company that creates meaning for the customer. What in our opinion makes this definition interesting is that it focuses on the immaterial aspect rather than the more physical aspects of a brand. A definition that even further points out the immaterial aspects of a brand defines the brand as the promise of the bundle of attributes that someone buysthe attributes that make up the brand may be real or illusionary, rational or emotional, tangible or invisible. (Ambler & Styles, 1996, p. 10) In my opinion, this definition is the most suitable one. The reason for this is that it catches the mere essence of what a brand stands for in the mind of individuals, namely a promise that is expected to be fulfilled. However, when discussing brand definitions, it could also be of importance to point out the brands function as a value carrier as was emphasized by Salzer-Mrling & Strannegrd (2002). The reason for this is, as mentioned before, that the concepts of value and brand seem to be closely related. This matter, as well as the process of building a brand will be further discussed below PROCESS OF BUILDING A BRAND It has been pointed out that building brands can be considered as a process of creating value for both the customer and the company (Melin 1999, Kapferer, 1994, Aaker, 1996). Concerning the brand management process as related to the function of a brand as an identifier, Aaker and Joachmisthaler (2000) discuss the traditional branding model where a brand management team was responsible for creating and coordinating the brands management program. In this situation, the brand manager was not high in the companys hierarchy; his focus was the short-term South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 101 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

financial results of single brands and single products in single markets. The basic objective was the coordination with the manufacturing and sales departments in order to solve any problem concerning sales and market share. With this strategy the responsibility of the brand was solely the concern of the marketing department (Davis 2002). In general, most companies thought that focusing on the latest and greatest advertising campaign meant focusing on the brand (Davis and Dunn 2002). The model itself was tactical and reactive rather than strategic and visionary (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000). The brand was always referred to as a series of tactics and never like strategy (Davis and Dunn 2002).This process is about creating what is referred to as brand equity (ibid). There is, according to Melin (1999) no acknowledged definition of brand equity. However, we find that Aakers (1996) definition could serve to elucidate the concept: Brand equity is a set of assets (and liabilities) linked to a brands name and symbol that adds to (or subtracts from) the value provided by a product or a service to a firm and/or that firms customers. (Aaker, 1996, p 7) Different researchers have different thoughts on how brand equity is created and which perspectives that need to be emphasized in the process. However, since our purpose of this section is to acquire a general understanding of the existent branding literature in order to move over to looking at branding, we will discuss some of the authors that we perceive as most recognized within the area. Consequently, we have decided to below attend to the work of David Aaker (1996), Jean-Nol Kapferer (1994), and Frans Melin (1999) concerning how brand equity is created. When discussing the brand building process, Melins (1999) model could in our opinion serve as a basis due to its rather comprehensive nature. The reason for this is that this model (as opposed to Aakers, 1996 and Kapferers 1994 reasoning) takes into consideration both the internal (brandThe owner/company) and external (consumer) perspectives of the brand building process. Kapferer (1997) mentions that before the 1980s there was a different approach towards brands. Companies wished to buy a producer of chocolate or pasta: after 1980, they wanted to buy KitKat or Buitoni. This distinction is very important; in the first case firms wish to buy production capacity and in the second they want to buy a place in the mind of the consumer (p. 23). In other words, the shift in focus towards brands began when it was understood that they were something more than mere identifiers. Brands, according to Kapferer (1997) serve eight functions shown in Table 2.1: the first two are mechanical and concern the essence of the brand: to function as a recognized symbol in order to facilitate choice and to gain time (p. 29); the next three are for reducing the perceived risk; and the final three concern the pleasure side of a brand. He adds that brands perform an economic function in the mind of the consumer, the value of the brand comes from its ability to gain an exclusive, positive and prominent meaning in the minds of a large number of consumers (p. 25). Therefore branding and brand building should focus on developing brand value. Kapferers view of brand value is monetary, and includes intangible assets. Brands fail to achieve their value-creating potential where managers pursue strategies that are not orientated to maximizing the shareholder value (Doyle 2001a, p. 267). Four factors combine in the mind of the consumer to determine the perceived value of the brand: brand awareness; the level of perceived quality compared to competitors; the level of confidence, of significance, of empathy, of liking; and the richness and attractiveness of the images conjured up by the brand. In Figure given below the relationships between the different concepts of brand analysis, according to Kapferer (1997), are summarized.

South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 102 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

The overall reasoning behind Melins model, as well as the reasoning of Kapferer (1994) and Aaker (1996) of the brand building process is that the main objective is to attract a large number of loyal customers. When customers are loyal over time, brand equity is created (ibid). Melin (1999) further argues that in order for the brand-owner to be able to attract this broad base of loyal consumers, it is essential to build a strategic brand platform, thereby adding to the brand equity. Below, we will begin discussing the external consumer perspective and then proceed, accordingly to Melin, with the internal brand-owner/company) and external (consumer) perspectives of the brand building process. As mentioned before, Kapferers (1994) and Aakers (1996) points of view will be incorporated in the discussion. THE BRAND BUILDING PROCESS: EXTERNAL PERSPECTIVE Melin (1999) argues that no matter which target group that a company focuses on, it is essential to understand the elements that affect the consumers decision-making process, which will lead to brand loyalty. Consequently the external perspective of the brand building process is based on six elements that describe the process for developing brand loyalty in the consumers mind (ibid). In order for the brand-owner to be able to create genuine brand loyalty, one of the essential tasks is, according to Melin (1999) to try to trigger a consumers commitment or interest for the brand in question. The goal for the brand-owner should be that the consumer South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 103 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

would attach as great importance as possible to the particular brand when choosing a product brand1 (ibid). The ultimate goal, Melin (1999) argues, is to decrease the consumers pricesensitiveness at the same time as the brand-sensitiveness is increased (i.e. the consumer chooses the offering with the brand as a basis and not the price). The brand sensitiveness is often the highest when the decision to buy concerns However, Melin (2002) points out that the commitment of the consumer varies depending on the type of product. Consequently, he argues that products like everyday commodities are generally low commitment products and the consumers are therefore passive receivers of information. However, products that have a complex decisionmaking process give rise to high commitment and the consumers thereby tend to actively search for information (Melin, 1999). Product brand is referred to as the particular brand and the particular product that it is attached to since a consumer does not buy only a brand nor a product (Melin, 1999) technologically complicated products or when the economic risk is perceived as high (Melin, 2002). The consumer will then tend to choose the better-known brand with a renowned reputation (ibid). By improving the brand-sensitiveness, the greater are the chances that brand awareness is created (Melin, 1999). According to Melin, (1999), creating brand awareness in the consumers minds is crucial for the brand building process. This reasoning is supported by Aaker (1996) who lists brand awareness as one of the four brand equity assets that create value. Brand awareness refers to the different ways that the consumers remember a brand (Aaker, 1996). It is argued that due to a large number of brands existing in the market, it is important to get the consumer to at least recognize the brand, recall it, or preferably that he has the brand on the top of his mind (Melin, 1999, Aaker, 1996). The optimal result is that the consumer recalls only the specific brand (Aaker, 1996). Creating brand awareness is important since it creates a sense of belonging and familiarity for the customer, which is a precondition for the creation of preferences for certain brands (Melin, 1999). Melin (1999) points out that in order to make the brand product seem attractive, it is important for the brand-owner to relate it with certain values, which will create positive brand associations in the consumers mind. This is the second brand equity asset that Aaker (1996) discusses. Brand associations refer to what the company wants the customer to relate the brand to and could include factors like product attributes or a certain spokesperson for the brand (ibid). The main reason that makes the concept of brand associations so important is that it contributes to avoiding competition based on price (Melin, 1999). Even if a consumer has never actually tried a certain product brand, he usually has some type of opinion of the brand (ibid). One of the most crucial brand associations that a consumer can have is perceived quality (Melin, 1999). This is the third brand equity asset that Aaker (1996) includes in his model of building brands. Perceived quality can be seen as the customers perceptions of the overall quality or the superiority of the offering, related to its intended purpose (Aaker, 1996). In order to transmit a notion about perceived quality, quality associations to the inner and the outer attributes of the product brand are useful (Melin, 1999). When it comes to the inner attributes, it is important to maintain a high and constant actual quality of the offering (ibid). The name and package of the offering, which are examples of the outer characteristics, can also affect the customers perception of the quality (ibid). Quality associations primarily emphasize the functional values of the product brand although emotional values such as lifestyle, geographical origin are also important (ibid). The idea is that the perceptions of the product brand should result in a positive and strong image in the consumers mind (ibid). Melin (1999) argues that the associations that the customer has to the brand, will serve as a basis for the value added, i.e. the premium price that the consumers are willing to pay to acquire exactly that brand. Further he argues that the goal for the brand-owner should be that South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 104 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

the value added would create brand preferences that in the long term will be transformed into brand loyalty. Since brand loyalty creates a base for profitability and a stable market share, it is highly desirable for the brand-owner that the consumer is strongly attached tothe specific product brand (Melin, 1999). Aaker (1996) also emphasizes the importance of brand loyalty and lists it as the fourth asset that contributes to the brand equity process. It is pointed out that there are five levels of brand loyalty, included in the loyalty pyramid (ibid), which will briefly be described below. The bottom level includes the buyer that is not loyal and consequently indifferent to the brand. In the second level the buyers are satisfied with the offering and see no need to change it although switching to another brand may occur if a better offer appears. In the third level the customers are also satisfied, however, switching to another brand implies costs in terms of money, time, etc. Customers that really like the brand can be found on the fourth level. These customers are in some sense usually emotionally attached to the brand. In the top level the committed customers can be found. Generally, these customers recommend the brand to others and usually the brand is important to them in the sense that they identify themselves with what the brand stands for. (Aaker, 1996) THE BRAND BUILDING PROCESS: INTERNAL PERSPECTIVE In order for the brand-owner to be able to attract brand loyal consumers it is, according to Melin (1999), important to identify the most essential elements in the brand building process from the perspective of the brand-owner. Consequently, Melin (1999) lists six strategic activities that are crucial for the internal brand building process and these will briefly be described below: One of the most important aspects in the brand building process is about using product attributes of different types in order to develop a functional value added for the customer (Melin, 1999). It is pointed out that in all kinds of brand building, one should bare in mind that a brand always becomes known through the product it represents (ibid). Further, it is stated that the brand has no intrinsic value and hence it is not until the brand is related to a product that the value creating process can be initiated (ibid). Consequently, Melin (1999) argues that the use of product attributes is of great importance in terms of differentiating a brand. This implies the use of concrete characteristics of the product like for example design, color and logotype as means to communicate and individualize the brands visual identity (ibid). As has been mentioned earlier, one of the most crucial brand associations that a consumer can have is perceived quality. Consequently, one of the most important product attributes is quality, where the focus for the brand-owner should be to reduce the gap between the perceived quality and the actual quality so that the quality expectations are met (Melin, 1999). The second important aspect of the internal brand building process is according to Melin (1999) about developing a strong sense of what the brand stands for, gives it meaning and makes it unique, in other words developing a strong brand identity. When discussing brand identity it is important to distinguish it from the concept of image (Aaker, 1996, Kapferer, 1994). These two factors are closely related to each other, but they take different starting points (Kapferer, 1994). While the topic of image takes a starting point in the customers point of view on how the brand is seen, the topic of identity deals with the question of what is the brands uniqueness (ibid). Hence, image can be seen as the result of what the customers have perceived in terms of a brands identity and should therefore not be the starting point when discussing how brand identity is created (Kapferer, 1994). It would be starting in the wrong end (ibid). South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 105 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

It is stated that brand identity has become increasingly more important due to the fact that it mainly builds on developing emotional value added, which is harder to copy than when building mainly on for example product attributes (Melin, 1999, Aaker, 1996). However, to develop a unique identity is a complex process that requires large measurements of continuity from the brand-owners perspective (Kapferer, 1994). As is pointed out by Kapferer (1994); while a newly created brand can take any path it desires, such liberty is highly restricted after several years, when the brand has already acquired its own level of existence and identity. Hence, what makes the process of developing an identity difficult is the fact that the brand needs to be updated and maintained and yet remain permanent and unique in terms of what it stands for (ibid). So what are the most important aspects for the creation of brand identity, then? Kapferer (1994) has developed a so-called identity prism dealing with this issue. This prism consists of six facets that will be further discussed below. As is explained by Kapferer (1994), the overall objective for the brand-owner is to develop a core identity that can be persistent over time. In order to do this however, the identity of the brand needs to be communicated from the brand owner. When building the identity of a brand, there are two sides to consider; the picture of the sender (i.e. brand-owner) and the picture of the recipient (customer). When discussing the picture of the sender, the point of departure should be the physique and the personality of the brand. The reason for this is that these are the factors that the brand-owner actually can control and communicate to the recipient. The physique of the brand is derived from certain key features or functions that make up the brand. As stated by Kapferer, the physique is the brand basis and the tangible support of the brand whose function is to evoke a mental picture of the brand in the minds of consumers. The overall goal with developing the physique and the personality of the brand identity is that it should correspond to the picture that is held by the recipient.. The personality of the brand is referred to as the particular character of the brand. What is pointed out is that people tend to identify the brand with a person, i.e. personify the brand and consequently this process can be enhanced by the brand-owner through using for example spokespersons or figureheads. It is important that the brand identity is a reflection of the consumers self image and how they want to be perceived. In order for the brand-owner to succeed with transmitting a strong brand identity, it is important that strong links between the product brand and the consumer are created. There are two different kinds of links for achieving this; relationship and culture. About relationship as a link for creating a brand identity, it is stressed that an exchange between persons, i.e. between the customer and the members of the organization, provides the opportunity to further portray the desired brand identity of the brand-owner. About the culture, it is stated that the brand has its own culture, which is derived from the organization behind the brand. This is especially true in the case where the brand and the organization bear the same name. (Kapferer, 1994) The third important aspect of the internal brand building process is according to Melin (1999) to develop a differentiation value added, i.e developing the core value of the brand. This implies determining the factors that can contribute to strengthening the longterm competitive advantage of the brand (ibid). The core value will then be the communicative link between the brand-owner and the consumer and it is therefore important that the factors that are chosen are easy to communicate, unique and difficult to imitate (Melin 1999). The next aspect that is included in Melins (1999) model is positioning, which refers to the process of acquiring a unique position in the minds of the consumers. The fifth aspect, market communication implies the task of actually transferring the positioning message to the customer (ibid). As means to do this, advertisements, commercials and sponsoring are used (Melin, 1999). The final aspect in the internal brand building process is according to Melin (1999) internal South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 106 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

brand loyalty. It is argued that a prerequisite for the customer to remain loyal to a brand is that the brand-owner is loyal as well, which means according to Melin (1999) that the brand-owner maintains a brands legal and commercial status (ibid). This is achieved by coordinating activities within four areas (ibid). The first one, trademark management refers to protecting the trademark exclusive right to the brand while identity management refers to controlling that there is coherence between the brand and the development of new products. Image management deals with working towards coherence of the brand image (consumers perspective) and the brand identity (brand-owners perspective). Finally, loyalty management refers to the measurements that the brand-owner takes in order to sustain a high consumer loyalty. CONCLUSION We have now illustrated some of the main aspects that are discussed by Kapferer (1994), Aaker (1996), and Melin (1999) concerning the process of building a brand. To summarize, Kapferers (1994) discussion about how brand equity is created is highly concentrated towards the creation of brand identity. However, in this discussion, Kapferer highlights the importance of a relationship between the customer and the members of the organization for brand identity creation and subsequently the brand equity creating process, an aspect that is not included in Melins framework for building a brand. Furthermore, in our opinion Melins framework is indeed the most complete compared to Aaker and Kapferer. For example, in the case of Aakers discussion about brand equity, it is more concentrated towards the external perspective of Melins model, listing the four assets of brand equity as brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty. With this reasoning as a basis, Aakers and Kapferers reasoning was incorporated in Melins framework. Therefore, from now on, we will refer to this compilation of the three authors reasoning as the brand building framework. In my opinion, a common denominator in the reasoning by the three authors (e.g. Aaker, 1996, Kapferer, 1994, Melin, 1999) is a lack of explicit distinctions in terms of branding of products versus services. Instead, the two concepts are dealt with simultaneously REFERENCES 1) Ambler, T & Styles, C. (1996). Brand Development versus New Product Development: towards a Process model of Extension Decisions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 14, No. 7 2) Delgado-Ballester, E. & Munuera-Alemn, J.L (2002), Brand Trust in the Context of Consumer Loyalty. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, 11/12. 3) Dwyer, F. Schurr. P & Oh, S (1987). Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April. 4) Hosmer, L.T. (1995), Trust: the Connecting Link between Organizational Theory and Philosophical Ethics. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, Issue 2 5) McAllister, D.L.(1995),Affect-andCognition-based Trust as Foundations for nterpersonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal, vol. 38, Issue 1. South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 107 -

SAJMMR

Volume 1, Issue 3 (December, 2011)

ISSN 2249-877X

6) McDonald, M. de Chernatony, L. & Harris, F. (2001), Corporate Marketing and Service Brands: Moving Beyond the Fast-Moving Consumer Goods Model. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, No. 7) Malmgren Anna-Maria, and Sucre ,Giselle (2004). The Role of Trust in the Process of Building a Service Brand, 2004/21 8) Melin, F. (2002), Varumrket som Vrdeskapare in Holger, L. & Holmberg, I.(2002), Identitet: om varumrken, tecken och symboler. Nationalmuseum & Raster Frlag, Stockholm. 9) Zeithaml, V. A. (1991), How Consumer Evaluation Processes Differ between Goods and Services in Lovelock, C.H. (1991), Services Marketing, 2nd Edition, Prentice-Hall International Inc., London. 10) Zucker, L (1986), Production of Trust: Institutional Sources of Economic Structure, 18401920. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 8 BOOKS 1) Aaker, D. (1991), Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. The Free Press, New York. 2) Aaker, D. (1996), Building Strong Brands. Simon & Schuster UK Ltd London 3) de Chernatony, L. & McDonald, M. (1998), Creating Powerful Brands in Consumer, Service and Industrial Markets. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd Oxford 4) Kapferer, J-N. (1994), Strategic Brand Management New Approaches to Creating and Evaluating Brand Equity. The Free Press, New York. 5) Kapferer, J-N. (1997), Strategic Brand Management Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. 2nd Edition, Kogan Page Ltd, London.

South Asian Academic Research Journals http://www.saarj.com

- 108 -